Taking pictures of someone else with out permission (legal question)

[John Bruh]

Can you get in trouble for taking pictures of someone at work, showing them to the boss.

 

 

This is a girl I've been talking to. She's been showing her boss that shit other people are doing, mainly this dike bitch thats a cunt.

 

 

Is this harassment? Can an actual lawyer or LEO answer this (or someone that has actual experience).

[Mojoe]

You can take a pic of whatever you want, so long as not trespassing or nudes without permission.

 

Experience.

[greg1647545532]

Privacy laws vary wildly by jurisdiction, and are mostly non-existent. It's usually a civil matter. For the most part, pictures are considered property of the picture-taker, and it doesn't matter what happens to be in them. However, the rule of thumb is "reasonable expectation of privacy." In other words, if you take pictures of me on my front lawn and I file a civil suit to have the pictures turned over to me, I'll probably lose, because the court will decide that I didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy on my front lawn. If you walk up to my window and take a picture of me sitting on my couch, I have a very good chance of winning. Depending on jurisdiction, ymmv, standard disclaimers, etc.

 

It's all about the specifics. If she's walking around with a camera in a cubicle farm, she's probably in the clear. If she's hiding a camera in potted plants in people's offices (the kind with doors), she may not be in the clear, unless she's acting as an agent of the company.

 

IANAL and IANALEO

[AWW$HEEET]

ferio

[LJ]

IANAL

 

You anal?

[Snowflake]

shady but not illegal

[greg1647545532]

You anal?

 

(i am not a lawyer)

[Otis Nice]

ferio

 

Win.

[SpaceGhost]

If you work, and don't fuck off what do you have to worry about? I'd ask the boss why she has time to take pics? Seems like her workload is light.

[John Bruh]

If you work, and don't fuck off what do you have to worry about? I'd ask the boss why she has time to take pics? Seems like her workload is light.

 

my thought exactly.

[TurboNova]

shady but not illegal

 

always room to make case law though

[mrs.cos]

Actually, as a photographer I have read up on these laws and there even pocket kits for photographers to carry around. I believe that doing that at a place of employment t is illeGal with out consent. Now out in public is a whole other story. I'll post up the photographers rights in a little bit, when I am at my pc.

 

I had to carry them when I was doing shoots in NYC at the Parks.

[mrs.cos]

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/photographers-rights-and-photography-privacy-advice

 

 

This is the page i had printed out and carry around, laminated, in my camera bag.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

 

 

http://www.rcfp.org/pullouts/photographers/index.php?pg=OH

Ohio

 

Ohio courts recognize all four privacy torts. Previously, the court did not recognize false light, but it reversed its position and decided to recognize it in a 2007 case. Welling v. Weinfeld, 866 N.E.2d 1051 (Ohio 2007).

 

Intrusion: A news broadcast about children victimized by their parents involvement with drugs included footage of a woman with her children at a drug raid. The woman, who alleged she was at the scene merely to pick up her children from their babysitter, stated claims for intrusion and defamation. , 615 N.E.2d 669 (Ohio Ct. App. 1992), , 608 N.E.2d 1085 (Ohio 1993).

 

ABC reporter Geraldo Rivera did not violate a then-existing state wiretap statute when he and a camera crew confronted a suspected “hit man.” , 932 F.2d 495 (6th Cir. 1991).

 

A woman who was interviewed by Geraldo Rivera, who secretly filmed and recorded the interview, could not sue for violation of the federal wiretap law because a then-current provision barring taping for “injurious purpose” was unconstitutionally vague and would likely inhibit reporting. , 881 F.2d 267 (6th Cir. 1989), , 493 U.S. 1028 (1990).

 

Parents sued a headstone company for negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress for using a photograph of their son’s headstone in their sales brochures. The court found for the company, since there was no proof that it intended to cause emotional distress or that it put the parents in fear of physical peril. Walkosky v. Valley Memorials, 765 N.E.2d 429 (Ohio App. 2001).

 

Private Facts: Broadcasting videotape of an innocent person wrongly arrested at a bar during a drug raid did not disclose private facts because the raid was a matter of legitimate public concern. , 469 N.E.2d 1025 (Ohio Ct. App. 1984).

 

The publication of police officer Fred Powell’s photograph in an article about substance abuse by officer Fred Powell was not a private fact because the photograph was a public record. , 19 Med. L. Rptr. 1727 (Ohio Ct. Comm. Pls. 1991).

 

The publication of a photograph of three children and a policewoman fixing a flat bicycle tire, as part of a photograph spread that included nude pictures of the woman, did not disclose private facts about the children because the photo was taken on a public street while the children were in public view. , 574 F. Supp. 10 (S.D. Ohio 1983).

 

False Light: A case involving a couple who sued their neighbor over handbills she distributed asking for tips about a potential vandalism on her property gave the Ohio Supreme Court a chance to formally recognize the tort of false light invasion of privacy. Welling v. Weinfeld, 866 N.E.2d 1051 (Ohio 2007).

 

Misappropriation: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a news broadcast showing the entire 15-second act of a human cannonball violated his right to control publicity about himself. The Court emphasized that the entire act was shown, implying that it might not recognize a right to publicity claim for the use of something less than an entire act in a news program. , 433 U.S. 562 (1977).

 

A magazine’s incidental use of a man’s wedding photograph in an article did not misappropriate anything of value beyond the value the man paced on his own likeness. , 904 F.2d 707, 17 Med. L. Rptr. 1962 (6th Cir. 1990).

 

The incidental use in a “20/20” program of the likeness of a suspected “hit man” did not support a misappropriation claim because the matter was of legitimate public concern. , 737 F. Supp. 431 (N.D. Ohio 1990), , 932 F.2d 495 (6th Cir. 1991).

 

Photographers’ Guide to Privacy, Fall 2007. © 2007 The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be reproduced without the written permission of the Reporters Committee.

[TTQ B4U]

Can you get in trouble for taking pictures of someone at work, showing them to the boss.

 

Is she hiding the camera or are they aware the photo is being taken? Just asking from more of an HR reason. If you have an HR person ? Not that it really matters. Employers have cameras that many of their employees are not aware of being recorded on and it's completely within the law.

 

I see no evidence of an expectation of privacy in a work environment like that. Your company is a private business correct? But it's a retail facility open to the public correct? if so, then photos by customers or employees may be allowed unless there are signs posted that expressly forbid videotaping or photography. From an employment standpoint she may be breaking rules though. Check with your boss.

 

This is a girl I've been talking to. She's been showing her boss that shit other people are doing, mainly this dike bitch thats a cunt.

 

She's not doing anything illegal there.

 

Is this harassment? Can an actual lawyer or LEO answer this (or someone that has actual experience).

 

No.

[Tractor]

If an identifiable person in the photo objects to their photo being taken then that is a violation of privacy rights period. But that is how it applies to a photographer. Not sure that it would apply to a coworker during business.

[TTQ B4U]

If an identifiable person in the photo objects to their photo being taken then that is a violation of privacy rights period. But that is how it applies to a photographer. Not sure that it would apply to a coworker during business.

 

There's no expectation of privacy or violation of rights if we as photogs just take their photo. We can snap street-side photos all day and there's no legal issue at all. Just the same, I can take photos of someone NOT working say working in their yard when they called off sick and send them to their boss. Again, unless I trespassed, in some way, there's no expectation of privacy.

 

Using them to profit, I need consent. However, even then, not many lawyers in town will take the case as the payout in damages would be near nothing based on the money I bring in. Likely just strong letter demanding removal of their image would hit the mailbox.

[HotCarl]

Sounds like a petty bitch to me. You should take a picture of someone throwing a rock through her windshielf then show it to your boss.

[CRed05]

lol